Talk:Triumph Tour#rfc 8238CFE

{{archive top}}

People need to read the article before mindlessly deleting stuff. There is an official confirmation of the setlist, ie Sony's live CD. Nothing is controversial. We don't need to clutter the article up with needless ref tags. That would be overdoing it. 78.148.156.65 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:As I have said on my talk page: All content added needs to have a reliable source. If there is no source for it, then it should not be included. The album has absolutely nothing to do with the set list. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:The set list must be supported by a reliable reference. No sourcing = no listing of it. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, exactly. The burden is on whoever places it back up, that they provide a reliable source that supports the addition. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|status=Compromise|result=There is an overwhelming consensus reached in the RfC for a Compromise. With this consensus, the book sources satisfying WP:ONUS and the now-archived discussion made here at WP:RSN, there is to be a summary above the tour date table that acknowledges that the tour dates are adapted from the books provided, but should also acknowledge that some sources states that some dates from the tour were on different days, which settles that matter. No other changes should be made to the tour date table. In regards to the "set list" which was brought up, there was no acknowledgement and barely discussion made, so that will be left for a discussion that has been posted above this topic. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{yo|Binksternet|57.138.134.131|NicktheUltra|Hjggmghi08765rtggh|Everything technology yt|Rogerwhatdidyoudo}} For the past few days, there has been back-and-forth editing to the article related to both the "set list" and the "tour dates", without discussion here first before any of these changes were made. Instead of edit warring over whichever information is correct or incorrect, please discuss your edits here, as well as the reason(s) for your changes, so that a consensus can be reached. HorrorLover555 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm going to say this first of all your book sources are not reliable at all and a couple friends of mine cannot find any confirmation the Oklahoma City date happened or was cancelled so I'm going to remove it 57.138.134.131 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Because think about it if they actually performed at Oklahoma City local newspapers would be talking about it but unfortunately we can't find any 57.138.134.131 (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::What about the set list which you keep re-inserting without references? The WP:ONUS for that is on the person who wants to include the information. The Oklahoma City bit has two cited sources, satisfying ONUS. You and your "couple of friends" are not published experts to refute the two sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{od|:::}}@{{reply|57.138.134.131}} First off, you're saying that the book sources I provided are unreliable while WP:SOURCE counts book sources as reliable. And explain this:

• {{cite book |last1=Jacksons |first1=The |last2=Bronson |first2=Fred |title=The Jacksons: Legacy |date=2017 |publisher=Workman Publishing Company |isbn=978-0-316-47374-3 |url=https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Jacksons/_F8RDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 |language=en}}

This is a book that documents everything from the group's tours, which includes tour dates. And the book happens to be written by the group in collaboration with the second author, and per WP:SOURCE which the book meets the standards for: {{tq|Books published by respected publishing houses}}, it is more than enough to be included as a source. And I am with Binksternet on this one, you and the other accounts are not experts on what is and what is not a reliable source. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:The book you are mentioning may be published by a "respected publishing house," but how can different concert dates shown in newspapers from the same week be explained? A newspaper from July 10th reviews the Baton Rouge concert from the night before (https://imgur.com/cP2gTLs), but this book claims that it happened on the 17th. Saying that this article is "outdated" is not an actual reason. Rogerwhatdidyoudo (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, those newspapers are outdated, because the book (The Jacksons: Legacy) just happens to be written by the group in collaboration with the second author, which is more than enough. Again, the book source meet the standards for inclusion, and not these newspapers that were just included without any discussion or consensus prior. If those newspapers are actually reliable, then the book (The Jacksons: Legacy) which again is WRITTEN BY THE GROUP IN COLLABORATION WITH THE SECOND AUTHOR would not have included those dates in the book. I have made this discussion here (that has since concluded) with the reliable sources noticeboard on Wikipedia and they have actually told me that the book is actually reliable when it comes to tour dates. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The book was written "by the group in collaboration with the second author." Cool. That still doesn't explain the Baton Rouge review from July 10th. Did Eddy Allman, the writer of that concert review, simply attend a different concert that also happened at the Riverside Centroplex on a Thursday? Did Allman manage to write his review one week prior to the real concert? The answer should be obvious. Just because something is "more official," it's not automatically more accurate. For example, the official Bad 25 booklet lists the New York concerts as March 3rd, 4th, and 5th, despite a concert on the 4th never existing. Rogerwhatdidyoudo (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The book source I have provided (The Jacksons: Legacy) says otherwise. If the Jacksons who wrote the book says that those dates are so, then they are so. Just because there are reviews from a show on the wrong date does not mean it is suitable for inclusion per WP:VNOT. Wikipedia does not care about a concert reviewer who attended the show. {{tq|Just because something is "more official," it's not automatically more accurate.}} Again, you are not a published expert to refute the two book sources. It makes me wonder if you have actually read the RSN discussion that had posted in my last response which again has been stated to be reliable, being that the publisher for the book {{tq|is part of the Hachette group}}.

::::"{{tq|For example, the official Bad 25 booklet lists the New York concerts as March 3rd, 4th, and 5th, despite a concert on the 4th never existing.}}" In that case, the 4th would need to be included as well, as Wikipedia has a policy called WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::First of all, no, the 4th would not need to be included in the Bad tour. There has never been and will never be a show on the 4th. There are no newspapers which support that claim, and the correct New York dates are the 3rd, 5th, and 6th. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, these books can get information wrong? In fact, The Jacksons: Legacy, like most other sources online, claimed that the two Montreal dates from The Jacksons' Victory tour were on the 17th and 18th. I refuted this with newspapers from the next day, and I'm surprised that my change is still there and it hasn't been removed because the book's publishing house is "respected."

:::::Second, sorry, but arguing that concert reviews were the "wrong date" and from that, they are not suitable for being included as a source is plain silly. In no logical way would concert reviews be unreliable specifically just for finding out the date a concert occurred. There are too many examples of different/cancelled dates shown in multiple newspapers for this all to be a case of "he said, she said":

:::::Second Atlanta concert happened on August 12th - [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/973495192/?match=1&terms=%22The%20Jacksons%20are%20back%20for%20more%22]

:::::Providence concert rescheduled to August 21st - [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/436895121/?match=1&terms=Providence%20Civic%20Center%20One%20LaSalle%20Square]

:::::Kansas City concert was planned to be on September 8th and was then cancelled - [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/678379544/?match=1&terms=%22jacksons%20cancel%20concert%22]

:::::San Diego concert was planned to be on September 17th and was also cancelled - [https://imgur.com/a/Jc48A2K]

:::::These cannot be passed off as incorrect. Why would so many newspapers intentionally write fake cancellation articles, come up with false dates, and write reviews prematurely? Obvious answer: they wouldn't. Rogerwhatdidyoudo (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::As {{u|Binksternet}} and I have stated above in the discussion, you are not the supreme authority in deciding what is and what isn't a reliable source. You are refusing to even look at any of the policies and guidelines that I have placed in front of you. Those book sources satisfy the needs of WP:ONUS.

::::::{{tq|First of all, no, the 4th would not need to be included in the Bad tour. There has never been and will never be a show on the 4th.}} Again, READ WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If the 4th is getting removed, then you need a source that supports that it never happened. Just having that source there which includes the 4th and not including it, is called original research which is frowned upon on Wikipedia.

::::::In regards to the newspaper sources, this is the first time you have even bothered to share the sources, so why did you not share these in the discussion when it first started? As there is no conclusion to any of these arguments, an RfC is likely to be started, which will discussed greatly, and then it will weight on the consensus on if the book(s) or the newspapers will be used. A compromise on using both the books and newspapers is always an option. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1741489272}}

Per the discussion above, it appears that there is an impasse on which sources should be used for the tour dates section. So, it comes to this question: Which is more reliable and should be preferred? Do we use the books (The Jacksons: Legacy and Michael Jackson FAQ) or the newspapers that claim that shows were on different days. Or should there be a compromise in which both the book(s) and newspapers be used, but in the form of efns that state that the shows were on different days "according to some sources". Please indicate your preference ("Books" or "Newspapers" or "Compromise") with your reasoning. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Compromise It is unfair that the edit war had to escalate to "back-and-forth" and "your word against mine" arguments, so I support a compromise that there should be an Efn next to the date of the show(s) that those using the newspapers "claim" was on a different day or never happened. The efns should the compromise be accepted should state on each show: "According to some sources, the show was performed on (insert date here, etc, etc. with inserted newspaper source there)", that way the edit warring can stop, and that both parties in disagreement with one another can be satisfied. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Compromise{{sbb}}, whatever the normal rules about a preference for (academic?) book sources over news sources, in this instance, it stretches plausability to argue that a local-ish newspaper would get the date wrong of a major local event that took place the night before, or a few days before publication. Whereas it is plausible that a 'fan' book, would make such an error if written months or more after the events. (A bit like the Sixties, apocryphally? "If you can remember them clearly, you probably weren't there"). Whatever, something basic has clearly gone wrong with some of the sources, but what/who exactly made the mistake(s) is probably unresolvable with 44 years intervening. Record the discrepancy briefly,Pincrete (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Compromise per Pincrete. I would add that it is a mistake to presume the Jacksons could not be wrong about tour dates; it is very likely that fans take the question of what show happened on what date at least one order of magnitude more seriously than any of the Jacksons themselves ever did, and their contribution to the writing of the official history was probably limited to a small handful of interviews with a ghost writer. At most. I think the briefest possible summary of the dates and sources in conflict should go in the body of the page immediately above the table of dates, not in a note. Regulov (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:: This is something I can support. Above the table, there should be a summary that states "The tour dates are adapted from both The Jacksons: Legacy and Michael Jackson FAQ, but according to some sources, there are shows that were performed at different days or times. (newspapers sourced here, etc.)". In regards to the efns I have proposed in my reasoning and preference, we could use the efns next to either the dates or city that are set in conflict, but do not need to add the references in them as the summary above the table would cover on that already. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Compromise. The contradiction between sources must be explained as briefly as possible. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Compromise as proposed by Pincrete. That seems like the most viable path to take, especially with discrepancies between sources/source types. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}